7/28/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`Page 1
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` IBG LLC; INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC;
` TRADESTATION GROUP, INC.; TRADESTATION SECURITIES,
` INC.; TRADESTATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
` and IBFX, INC.
`
` Petitioner
`
` v.
`
` TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
` Patent Owner
`
` CBM2015-00161 (Patent No. 6,766,304 B2)
` CBM2015-00172 (Patent No. 7,783,556 B1)
` CBM2015-00179 (Patent No. 7,533,056 B2)
` CBM2015-00181 (Patent No. 7,676,411 B2)
` CBM2015-00182 (Patent No. 6,772,132 B1)
`
` Deposition of DAN R. OLSEN, JR., taken at
` McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP,
` before Donna M. Kazaitis, CSR, RPR, CLR, and
` CRR, commencing at the hour of 9:07 a.m. on
` Thursday, July 28, 2016.
`
`____________________________________________________
` DIGITAL EVIDENCE GROUP
` 1730 M Street, NW, Suite 812
` Washington, D.C. 20036
` (202) 232-0646
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`202-232-0646
`
`1
`
`TradeStation v. Trading Technologies
`CBM2015-00161
`Exhibit 1025
`
`

`
`7/28/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` If we go to Paragraph 27 on the
`'304 declaration, in the second sentence you state
`that "improvements to interfaces have long been
`the subject of patentable technologies and
`provides specific benefits."
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Are you aware of a Supreme Court
`decision called Alice versus CLS Bank?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: No.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. So you would have no opinions as to
`whether or not that decision impacts whether or
`not the claims of the '304 Patent are patentable?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: I have no awareness of
`the decision.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. And so you didn't take into account
`that decision in forming your opinions?
` A. I did not.
` Q. Let's go back to Paragraph 12.
`Page 38
`
` Before we do that, for completeness
`and so I don't have to repeat the same question
`later, in regard to the '132 declaration, would it
`be fair to say that you did not consider the
`Supreme Court case Alice in forming any opinions
`regarding patentability of the claims of the '132
`patent?
` A. That would be correct.
` Q. In regard to the '411 declaration,
`would it be fair that you did not consider the
`Supreme Court decision in Alice in regard to any
`opinions regarding patentability of the '411
`claims?
` A. That would be correct.
` Q. So let's go back to the '304 and
`Paragraph 12.
` You mention here in the second
`sentence of Paragraph 12, you say "user interface
`technology is the subject of study at institutions
`such as MIT, CMU" -- is "CMU" Carnegie Mellon?
` A. Yes.
` Q. -- Stanford, University of Washington,
`Page 39
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`Georgia Tech.
` Is it your opinion that because
`they have a study, that it's technology?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: It's my opinion that all
`of these programs are housed in their computer
`science departments or in their computer science
`schools, which I consider technology, yes.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Did you read the '304 Patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And did you read the '411 Patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And did you read the '132 patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. So let's go to Paragraph 6. I said
`this was logical, but I'm going backwards; aren't
`I? I'll admonish myself.
` In the second sentence, it says "I
`had been asked to review the nature of the
`invention in the '304 Patent."
` A. Yes.
`
`Page 40
`
` Q. Do you feel qualified to review the
`nature of the invention in the '304 Patent?
` A. Yes.
` Q. Are you a person of ordinary skill in
`the art of the '304 Patent?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, calls for a
`legal conclusion, and scope.
` THE WITNESS: If ordinary skill
`relates to what happened at the time this patent
`was filed or issued, I haven't actually looked or
`studied what that would mean, what that ordinary
`skill would be. So drawing that conclusion at
`this point would be not good on my part.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. So you haven't studied the state of
`the art when these patents were filed?
` A. That's correct.
` Q. Does solving a technical problem
`require the use of a scientific or engineering
`knowledge -- let me rephrase that question.
`There's an extra word in there.
` Does solving a technical problem
`Page 41
`Pages 38 to 41
`202-232-0646
`
`2
`
`

`
`7/28/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Are all graphical user
`interfaces technology? It would depend what you
`meant by the graphical user interface. If you
`meant the software that implements it on a
`computer, yes.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. What happens if I meant what's being
`displayed on a computer?
` A. If it meant what's being displayed on
`a computer, it would depend on the aspect of the
`display.
` In these particular claims which
`are claiming a particular structure for that
`display, that would be technology.
` Q. But not all graphical user interfaces
`regarding the display are technology?
` A. I'd have to look at a specific
`instance before making a blanket statement.
` Q. What about a web page that has text
`and a link to another website?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
`Page 54
`
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Would that be technology?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, scope.
` THE WITNESS: It depends on what
`context you were trying to evaluate relative to a
`technology. Is it built on a computer, does it
`use software, yes, it does. Is software
`technology, yes, it is. Does it have other
`purposes other than just executing the software,
`yes, it does. Are all those purposes technology,
`I don't know, I'd have to look at the specific
`instance.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Let's look at Figure 3 of the '304
`Patent.
` A. Okay.
` Q. Have you seen this before?
` A. Yes.
` Q. I believe this patent refers to it as
`a Mercury display. Do you recall that?
` A. I don't recall the name, no.
` Q. Do you have a name for this figure?
`Page 55
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` A. Figure 3.
` Q. Very good.
` Is there a graphical user interface
`displayed in Figure 3?
` A. Yes.
` Q. And does this graphical user interface
`shown in Figure 3 improve the functioning of the
`computer?
` A. Relative to Figure 2, yes.
` Q. How does Figure 3 relative to Figure 2
`improve the functioning of the computer?
` A. So the functioning of the computer
`would have to do with what it was being used for.
`And if I go back to my report, if we go to the
`elements for example, Paragraph 29, the axis
`alignment improves visual search by the fovea for
`a specific market price. Alignment along the axis
`gives the eye a very specific direction to look.
` I believe I'm in now Paragraph 29.
`"The alignment of ask information along the same
`axis as the bid information allows for a unified
`perception of both aspects of commodity trading."
`Page 56
`
` That would be a sample from my
`report of things that are specifically
`improvements over what is shown in Figure 2.
` Q. I think everything you mentioned
`though was things that were improvement relative
`to the user; correct?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Well, they're relative
`to the structure of this particular tool.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Understood. But you talked about the
`user's eye, and my question earlier was how does
`the GUI in Figure 3 improve the functioning of the
`computer?
` A. Well, the functioning of the computer
`is to aid the user. That is the function of the
`computer. And it has improved that function.
` Q. Okay. Does the GUI in Figure 3 make
`the computer run faster?
` A. That's not the improvement claimed.
` Q. I'm asking. That's the question I'm
`asking.
`
`Page 57
`Pages 54 to 57
`202-232-0646
`
`3
`
`

`
`7/28/2016
`
`IBG LLC, et al. v. Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`
`Dan Olsen
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
` A. It does not.
` Q. Does it allow the computer to use less
`energy?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Does the GUI in Figure 3 allow the
`computer to use less energy?
` A. That is not one of the claimed
`improvements, no.
` Q. Does the GUI in Figure 3 make the
`computer more efficient relative to the network?
` A. That's not one of the claimed
`improvements, no.
` Q. Does the GUI in Figure 3 allow the
`computer to make a trade faster?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: That depends on what you
`mean by "faster." If you mean faster, does it
`allow the person using the tool to make faster
`trades, yes, it does.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. But does it allow the computer to make
`Page 58
`
`a faster trade?
` A. If the computer is serving as a
`servant to the user, the computer is doing faster
`what the user desired it to do.
` Q. What operation of the computer is
`made -- let me rephrase that question.
` What operation of the computer is
`improved by the GUI by Figure 3?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: What operation of the
`computer is improved by --
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. The operation of the GUI of Figure 3
`of the '304 Patent.
` MS. KURCZ: Same objection.
` THE WITNESS: So the computer as a
`tool operates better in the execution of its
`function of that tool, of that goal, whatever it
`was created as a tool for.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. How does the computer operate better?
` MS. KURCZ: Same objection.
`Page 59
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`www.DigitalEvidenceGroup.com
`
`Digital Evidence Group C'rt 2016
`
` THE WITNESS: It better performs the
`function for which it was created and being used.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. So simply because the user has an
`advantage, that means the computer has an
`advantage?
` MS. KURCZ: Same objection.
` THE WITNESS: I would say that's true
`of every tool.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Going back to the '304 Patent. Given
`that I believe you testified you didn't know that
`this was a method claim, would you not have an
`opinion as to whether or not a method claim would
`be different from an apparatus claim?
` A. I would not have an opinion at this
`time, no.
` Q. Does every GUI having a unique
`arrangement of known GUI elements represent an
`advance in human computer interaction?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Repeat that again for me
`Page 60
`
`if you would, please.
` MR. SOKOHL: Sure.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. Does every GUI having a unique
`arrangement of known GUI elements represent an
`advance in human computer interaction?
` MS. KURCZ: Objection, form.
` THE WITNESS: Okay. To have an
`advance, there has to be a basis for comparison.
`You've only given me one side of the basis. I'd
`have to have the other side to say whether or not
`there was an improvement.
`BY MR. SOKOHL:
` Q. So you'd need to know what came
`before?
` A. Yes.
` Q. In Paragraph 27 of your '304
`declaration, and I believe this is identical in
`the '411 declaration as well as the '132
`declaration, you say in the last sentence, "It is
`not the nature of commodity trading that is
`claimed in the '304 Patent but rather the
`Page 61
`Pages 58 to 61
`202-232-0646
`
`4